Share This article

One of the major selling points for a top-end GPU like Nvidia’s new GTX Titan is the idea that it opens up new gaming experiences. We’ve taken Nvidia’s new GPU for a spin in multi-monitor gaming — along with the GTX 680 and Radeon 7970 for comparison.

The peculiarities of multi-monitor gaming

When AMD launched the HD 5000 series, it made the decision to focus on multi-monitor gaming, while Nvidia opted to focus on 3D. Once it became clear that 3D gaming simply wasn’t going to be the Next Big Thing, NV decided to switch focus and develop its own multi-monitor solutions. AMD held an early lead as far as game compatibility and multi-monitor support from a single card, but NV has caught up on both fronts. New games that support Eyefinity support Nvidia 2D Surround as well.

There are some differences. Nvidia’s 2D Surround on the GTX 680 can support three displays from any combination of its 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, and 1x DisplayPort outputs. The Radeon 7970 requires that you use both DVI ports and a DisplayPort connection. If you use a DisplayPort to DVI converter, you’ll need an active converter rather than a passive one to do the trick. AMD’s setup and configuration process for multi-monitor support is, in my opinion, a bit easier to use, but both of them get the job done.

I’ve been a gamer for 25 years, but this is the first time I’ve ever played with a multi-monitor configuration. My two word evaluation of the experience?

Holy crap.

Note: It’s hard to convey the triple-monitor experience on a single display. We recommend you examine the widescreen image in two ways. First, with the image zoomed out so that the entire horizontal fits on your monitor, and second, fully zoomed in. Be advised: You can click every image in this story for the full-size version — but they’re rather large!

The immersion argument

Proponents of multi-monitor gaming will tell you that the difference between three monitors and one is enormous. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to convey the experience on a single monitor. We’re going to start off with the practical side of multi-monitor gaming, using Batman: Arkham City as an example.

Here’s Robin, using what the game calls Corner Cover. Camera control in this mode is very limited; you can’t rotate your field of vision to see if someone is sneaking up from the other side of the wall or if there are enemies past the divider on the right-hand side. Now, the same screen shot — in 5760×1080.

Tripling the horizontal resolution changes the game experience. Now, you can see if enemies are approaching from the right. You can see if there’s an enemy walking on the upper level on the far right-hand side. The triple-wide screen option comes in handy in other titles as well, particularly if there’s a lot of action coming in from multiple directions. Here’s Serious Sam: BFE, cropped to a 1920×1080 display size.

Here’s the exact same screenshot, with the left and right panels restored. I’ve inserted black lines to show where the bezels sit.

The Gnarr to the right was invisible on a standard widescreen monitor. With triple displays, you can see him coming easily.

The benefits extend to any game that supports the technology — and support has improved markedly over the past few years, thanks to greater attention from AMD and Nvidia, more developers incorporating the option, and a great deal of interest in “second screen” gaming technologies in general. The Wide Screen Gaming Forum (WSGF.org) is also recognized for a great deal of excellent work in developing software workarounds and detailed posts on how to get games working on widescreen/multi-monitor displays).

The best way to measure if the screen stretching would actually bother you is to focus on the center of the image and let the left-and-right stay in the periphery. The stretching isn’t nearly as noticeable if your eyes are focused on the middle, where they’d actually be sitting if you played the game.

I see – so you don’t have a point, instead you rely on childish remarks? A very ineffective way to communicate.

m0r1arty

I expect those reading here at ET to be able to infer sarcasm and condescension when it’s applied as liberally as my previous comment to you was ‘VirtualMark’.

The fact you don’t get it doesn’t surprise me, it ‘went over your head’ due to your inability to see beyond the horizontal in both the foveal and peripheral fields of view :rolleyes:

I’d say chin up, but then your eyes would have to compensate ;)

VirtualMark

So you have to rely on sarcasm to get your point across? As opposed to answering in an adult manner and putting your point across intelligently.

Acting condescending only works when you know what you’re talking about. I take it you still haven’t read up on human vision? Instead you rely on your strawman fallacy of misrepresenting what i’ve said, and continually make references to being able to look upwards.

m0r1arty

Acting condescending only works when you know what you’re talking about.

Read up on peripheral vision. Basically human eyes are side by side, not one on top of the other, we have a wider view horizontally than vertically.

I’ve had 22/20 vision my entire life, whilst I have read up on human physiology I don’t expect others to do so unless it’s via Braille when discussing what seeing is like. You however can’t make basic observations, available to all but the blind, and require reading about them instead of using that thing behind your eyes to deduce the obvious.

I’m well aware of why the human head is shaped the way it is and I’m also not condoning having equal amounts of monitors for the vertical and horizontal planes. I’m suggesting a 3:2 ratio to best encompass our 160 degree horizontal and 100 degree vertical peripheral vision.

Let’s count, how many monitors on the horizontal?3
Let’s count, how many monitors on the vertical? 2

Ratio 3:2

Condescension win!

As for attacking the poster’s character and not the content of the post…yeah, presuming people don’t know how to see ranks well below ‘spotty teenage’ jibes.

You sir have been had. I would suggest leaving the issue instead of looking further like the fool you’ve shown yourself to be.

VirtualMark

That’s not how ratio works! Sigh.

m0r1arty

I thought we we talking about peripheral vision?

I thought you’d read up on peripheral vision and understood the facts?

I thought your argument is that we see more in a horizontal capacity than in a vertical capacity?

Are you suggesting that we add two more monitors, which are mostly redundant as the brain doesn’t really use the upper left and right regions, just so that a fully peripheral experience can be had?

How about we chuck a nose onto the display too, since we are trying to replicate ever facet of seeing according to your book?

These questions, and others, won’t be answered but keep watching; same bat-disqus, same bat-website!

VirtualMark

To be honest i’m growing tired of discussing things with you. Firstly – you keep resorting to lame insults, childish remarks and the use of bold writing. Instead of discussing like an adult. I have no wish to trade insults or discuss things in this manner.

Secondly – you are too dumb to understand that your ratio is not the same as a rectangular 3:2 ratio. If you cannot understand the difference, i have no wish to discuss anything with you.

Your setup is unique, i’ll give you that. But don’t expect many people to be adopting this “cross” shape, most people prefer plain old rectangular displays. And that, believe it or not, is what people are talking about when they speak of display ratios. You do not seem to grasp this.

I expect you’ll reply with another childish/angry/insulting reply – good luck with that but i won’t be replying any further.

m0r1arty

I expect you’ll reply with another childish/angry/insulting reply – good luck with that but i won’t be replying any further.

Epidemic!

Win here, win there, win everywhere!

RogueSimulant

As far as i can see – you have failed to understand any of his points, and have smugly proclaimed yourself the winner of a discussion. So in both cases, you have missed the point. To me that makes you a loser.

m0r1arty

His point was that peripheral vision above the foveal was redundant because human eyes are side-by-side and not on-top of each other.

A brand new account created just to call me a loser RogueSimulant?

Yeah, I’ll take that insult and turn it back around on you ;)

RogueSimulant

I’m allowed to join a discussion, don’t start insulting me! It was no insult, you don’t know how to talk to people, that’s a fact. And your weird shape display isn’t going to catch on anywhere, it’s a bad idea just admit it.

Fine VirtualSock, whatever floats your boat. Remember me when you are playing with my configuration and stating that it rocks ;)

Guest

hahaha, that’s the greatest thing ever. you got under his skin so bad he created a new account just to bitch at you like he’s a 3rd person. kudos.

Guest

Arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics, even if you win, you’re still retarded :P

m0r1arty

you’re still retarded :P

And I’ll never claim otherwise ;)

RogueSimulant

Ratios are used to describe rectangular screens. Your screen isn’t a full 3:2 ratio, it has the top corners missing. This will look terrible.

m0r1arty

If you are looking at the centre screen Rogue, and the others are for peripheral stimulation and instead of turning your head or moving your eyes you turn your point of view in game, then yes, this is as close to 3:2 ratio as technology allows for now.

The ‘corners’ you are referring to don’t allow for much visual acuity as is, and in essence hammer home VirtualMark’s point of horizontal vision being the dominant field in humans.

Thanks for the second post of your new account too!

Joel Hruska

That’s not how ratios work. I can show you mathematically.

5760×1080 = 3 widescreen in landscape mode. Aspect ratio = 16:3.

Turn those displays to portrait mode, and you get 3240×1920. Aspect ratio is 27:16, or 1.68 if you prefer the binary. 3:2 = 1.5.

What about what you suggest? Let’s look at that. The only way to configure NV Surround or Eyefinity for such an option is to trick the software into thinking you’re going to have a 2×3 configuration of six displays total. Total assumed resolution is 5760×2160 (8:3) or 3840×3240 (27:32).

8:3 in binary is 2.67. That’s *far* from 3:2. It’s actually farther from 3:2 than three 1920×1080 displays in Portrait mode.

Now, let’s switch gears a moment and look at what you’re *actually* going to do. The original screenshots I’m about to modify are here:

In both cases, you’d actually get more use if you blacked the *lower* screens, not the upper ones. Since the point of Eyefinity and Surround is to split the viewing area into equal rectangles, blocking the top ports means blocking the area that isn’t ground cover.

The reason a 3-monitors below 2 monitors above configuration won’t work with NV Surround or Eyefinity is because both programs lock you to your lowest monitor’s resolution. You can combine a 1600×900 display with a bunch of 1920×1080 displays, but they’ll all be slaved to 1600×900 res. This is covered in the support documentation from both companies.

There might be some third-party programs that make this work without using Eyefinity/Surround, but I’ve seen no info suggesting that this is widely possible. And your understanding of the aspect ratio question is flawed, regardless.

m0r1arty

Ya Joel, that’s a secret, but once you get it figured out, it’s a nonplus.

Joel Hruska

Nope. Still makes no sense. :P

m0r1arty

LOL Joel, this thread just keeps coming back.

6 monitors, remove 2 from your display, 4 monitors with headsup.

I’ve seen this with a video jockey I worked with, this was his standard configuration. His explanation of peripheral vision is almost verbatim what I’ve stated here. Reckon it was ‘Eyefininty’ and not some specialist software.

Now his pixel ratio…I’ve no idea I game very little, but it looked spot on and worked a treat.

Happy Monday!

Joel Hruska

I’m dubious as to how you’d achieve this.

Eyefinity and NV Surround don’t support LPL. Eyefinity only offers configuration options as 3×1 or 1×3. I never saw the option to confiure an irregular box, and since Eyefinity creates a Single Large Surface, I don’t know how that’d be possible. Every multi-monitor ocnfiguration I’ve heard of keeps an equal number of screens on the vertical or horizontal and sticks to rectangular surfaces.

In theory you might be able to combine Eyefinity with some other software solution to rotate *just* the pixels on one display to achieve an LPL (giving you more vertical), but I’ve never heard of anyone doing this.

Neon Frank

Aside from gaming three monitors makes sense for me for the work that I do

VirtualMark

Interesting article. As far as FOV goes – i’ve found most games have a way to change it in a config file.

Marc Guillot

Holy Crap indeed. :-)

LZKashmir

Indeed. I just recently jumped on the Eyefinity train…and I’m not hopping off any time soon. Despite some of the negative comments, I think Eyefinity/Surround will be one of the saving graces of PC gaming. It truly does offer a level of immersion that is hard to explain without experiencing it first hand. I bigger screen cannot compare, at least when it comes to a FPS.

http://profiles.google.com/zzxxrtyzx Rick Smith

I suspect Oculus Rift is going to make this
discussion moot in a year or so.

Joel Hruska

I don’t. I expect Occulus Rift will be interesting, even fun, but still affected by dizziness problems. Granted, I’m prone to those sorts of issues (and that’s not the Rift’s fault), but I’ll be stunned if they’ve fixed it.

Also, remember that putting a display *right* in front of your eyes doesn’t solve this issue intrinsically. You need a very different FOV to prevent distortion, but resolutions will have to be carefully tuned against the power consumption, weight, and light output of the device.

Very few specialized game devices become mass market successes. That’s not because they don’t work — it’s because developers tend to shy away from technology that requires significant work to support for small financial returns. I very much hope the OR is successful (and that I can use one), but it’s got a long , long road to climb as far as breaking into mass markets. It’s entirely possible that the headset will work perfectly, be awesome, but have a very limited impact on games and game support. Sometimes that happens.

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

With several million dollars raised in a very short time from crowd-funding alone (and the imminent shipment of developer packages) I highly doubt that’ll be the case! The Rift is no ‘Novint Falcon’…

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

I for one have waited all my life for the Rift, but there is no way that’ll stop me playing games in triple monitor HD. Bottom line is convenience and clarity – immersion isn’t everything (and I speak as a VR professional of 15 years). As for these benchmarks, my Gigabyte GTX 670 OC (windforce) SLI rig absolutely blows Titan out of the water and cost less than half ;)…

http://profiles.google.com/zzxxrtyzx Rick Smith

Of course when I speak of Oculus Rift I think about 4k OLED 21:9 screen (perhaps flexible) with crazy POV specs and super fast refresh rates. All the physical tech is coming to fruition now, and with Carmack’s program genius, I think even movie theaters had better start worrying. I realize the first commercial examples will not have those specs but I can’t see why not in a year or two.

d8f9sfhij

The negatives of >1 monitor (in my opinion):

– the bezels – they look crappy and are likely a pain to deal with when what you want to see is right where they happen to rest.
– the price – cheaper than a larger monitor (say 30″) sure, but I’d rather spend that $ (say $150*3) upgrading my PC. Not to mention the GPU needed to run these monitors has to be pretty beefy – so extra $ needed there.
– Cheap way to gain an advantage… The extended view area is essentially a cheat that you paid for. I am positive >1 screen gaming is still a tiny minority, therefore those that get the screens essentially elevate themselves above the rest. No problem for 1 player games, but for FPSs for ex. that’s a distinct advantage. In general, it doesn’t matter, but it bothers me still

At the moment, I personally cannot justify spending cash on extra screens when they have such large detrimental qualities for gaming alone. Productivity is an entirely different story. Good article.

P.S. From the benchmarks, am I correct in assuming a solid software tweak of the HD 7970 would give it the performance of the GTX680 or higher (it has the frame rates, but just needs to be “smoother” as you say)? Is this possible and/or likely? If not, what does the smoothness depend on, would you say?

VirtualMark

Yeah the boundaries annoy me too – it’s basically a cheap version of having one enormous high res monitor.

Thomas Wells

No it is not the same, having one enormous monitor just makes everything bigger therefore you have the same perspective and field of view. The triple screen setup gives you the same field of view as a small screen but you then see the peripheral areas as well, kind of like taking blinders off.

VirtualMark

Sure it’s not the same, one huge monitor doesn’t have those horrible borders.

Haven’t you ever changed the FOV? This is available in most PC games and allows you to set up the view how you like. Sometimes you have to change the config file.

The main reason people buy multiple monitors is due to the cost of one massive one – look at prices if you think i’m wrong. And the other obvious advantage is the ability to split screens up easily.

Joel Hruska

VirtualMark,

You’re wrong about this. FOV is part of the difference, but only part. With a 1920×1080 screen, you have 1,920 pixels of “view.” FOV shifts will change what you see, to be sure, but the largest horizontal resolution you can buy is 2560 pixels.

5760×1080 shows you more than twice what 2560 does. Altering the FOV will change what you see, but you’ll *always* see more with 5760 than with 2560 at the same FOV. The distortion to the left and right of center is caused by this effect.

The curving is nice, but they aren’t going to show as much as this setup. And it looks great for gaming, but not so much for mainstream work.

Also, let me tell you this. The bezels aren’t as distracting as you think they’ll be.*

I was dismissive of triple monitors because I thought the bezels and stretch would be horribly distracting, but the truth is, they aren’t. The peripheral displays help you keep much better track of what’s going on outside the normal field of vision, but it’s rare to use them for primary input. If you have to look at something directly, a little camera rotation brings it to the primary display for better focus — though the magnification effect can actually be helpful.

I’m the first one to agree that the static shots look bad for these reasons, but the truth is, you don’t see it the same way when you’re playing. Your eye’s peripheral vision is most sensitive to movement, and *that’s* what these setups let you track.

*I am assuming you haven’t actually tried a triple-display. If you have, and they were exactly as terrible as you thought they’d be, even after you took time to adjust, than I withdraw that claim.

VirtualMark

I don’t think they’re terrible, i’d rather just have a hugh high res monitor if one were available. Those curved ones look nice, but they’re very pricey at the moment.

I currently use a dual monitor setup and do find the bezels annoying. Perhaps this is because i’m looking at static screens vs a moving 3d game.

Joel Hruska

I’d bet that it’s actually two things.

1) Static vs. moving game, as you said.
2) The bezel position.

In a 3 monitor setup, the middle display sits in the center of your binocular vision. The other two displays are covered by one eye each — and the mechanics of the eye means that they’re mainly ‘noticed’ in terms of motion rather than receiving peak visual acuity.

The bezel gets ignored, because it isn’t moving.

In a two monitor setup, though, your peak vision is either switching from screen to screen, or sits right *on* the bezel. You can’t do anything without seeing it.

You can simulate the effect like this. Take a pen. Hold it right up in front of you. Everywhere you look, you’re seeing the pen. You can ignore it, or turn your head, but the pen is always *there.*

Now shift the pen out to your right or left, into the periphery of your vision. Focus on what’s out in front of you. You can still see the pen, but it’s not actively poking you in the visual cortex going “Hey! Look! I’m right here! Look at me, I’M RIGHT HERE!”

VirtualMark

Yeah i tried a game on dual monitors a while back, lasted about 10 seconds before i put it back to a single screen. It’s got to be either single or triple monitors to work for gaming.

8fsdfjsio

Damn, that is one THICK monitor. Excellent size though…

8fsdfjsio

You will also have to suffer through those annoying borders…

Joel Hruska

They aren’t annoying in real life. Try it.

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

It is yes, that’s a dual DLP projector setup. Edje blending is hardly worth the massive resolution loss. As for the ‘horrible borders’, oh please ;) Point is, within minutes (on a triple widescreen rig) you completely forget they are even there… and, if it really does bother you, buy slim-bezel monitors – they do exist.

8fsdfjsio

Pretty sure you can (esp. if your monitor supports a higher res than “1080p”) decrease the size of everything and get ~ same effect. ex. 2650*1600 can obviously display more than a 1920*1200 monitor…

Thomas Wells

Having used AMD’s 3×1 eyefinity configuration for going on 3 years now, I can say that after a few minutes of gaming your brain doesn’t see the bezels any longer. I originally thought that I would use the set-up for gaming only but now I find that I can multi-task much better than with just one large screen. I will never go back to just one screen.

William Libbrecht

I always thought that, for me, three monitors in portrait display would be closest to ideal. Gaming and perhaps viewing videos/images on all three and then surfing and reading docs on just one. Especially like these: http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/model/UM.VH6AA.003

Joel Hruska

Those don’t appear to rotate.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Richard-Wei/770765407 Richard Wei

Get yourself a vizio 58inch
CinemaWideHDTV as a monitor, It blows away dual/triple monitors setups.

Joel Hruska

Nope. A bigger screen isn’t the same as a higher resolution. It might be 21:9 but it’s still 1920×1080

hector hernandez

how about a test using 3 projectors(1080p) to get a more inmersive experience would love to see that set up pics…

Randomoneh

You haven’t said why distortion is present with high FOV. First, game engine expects your displays to form a straight line. What game engine also expects is that those displays really occupy the FOV that your put in. So if you set FOV to 179 degrees – game engine thinks your display setup is really occupying 179 degrees of your field of view. Now, if it did, you’d be looking at those “distorted” areas at an angle. From that angle, it would look perfect and wouldn’t be distorted anymore.

It’s much like that street art where you have to look at the drawing at a specific angle. When you do, everything looks just like it should. Look at wrong angle – and things get “distorted”.

http://twitter.com/Marble_Shark Marble Shark

“The good news is that the Titan’s value proposition survives quite nicely. You don’t need one to enjoy multi-monitor goodness,”….
“You need two”.

Joel Hruska

No you don’t. The GTX 680 and Radeon 7970 can drive a number of games at triple-monitor resolutions. Titan is better, but not always necessary.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.